2011年2月28日星期一

不称职,失职,引咎辞职与绅士

当作为一个选举委员会主席,

对于选举时的,派礼品,派钱(他们说是帮助竞选的每日薪金),“你帮我,我帮你”,“你做美美,我做好好”,成篇的新闻广告(他们说不知道是谁出钱登的,大概是支持者),你不知道是不是贿选!你不是这方面的专家!

请问,谁应该确保公正公平的选举?谁该确保没有任何形式有可能影响选举结果的贿选?如果你不是专家,谁应该是?

当你不称职,不能胜任这项工作,你就是失职。For God's sake, 你该为什么人负责?你负了谁?是人民对吗?

作为一个知廉耻的绅士,你是不是时候引咎辞职呢?

2011年2月24日星期四

“ 所有的动物,与生俱来皆平等!”

动物庄园》里头的猪只,在把压迫者(人类)赶出庄园的最初,他们对庄园里所有的动物宣称:“所有的动物,与生俱来皆平等!”。

过了一些时候,他们宣称:“所有的动物,与生俱来皆平等,但有一些动物,会比其他,更平等!”。这就是赶走压迫者后,自己渐渐变成了压迫者的开始。

赶走了日本蝗军和殖民的英军,在独立的最初,
他们说:“全体的国民平等!”
从此全体国民独立,不受压迫。

过了一些时候,
他们说:“全体的国民平等,但有一些国民,比其他国民更平等!”
因此,有些人,他们说是外来者,变成了第2等国民。

再过了一些时候,
他们又说::“全体的国民平等,但有一些国民,比其他国民更平等!”
结果,有些不信教土地的孩子,变成了第2等国民;原本第2等变成第3等国民。

又在过了一些时候,
他们又说::“全体的国民平等,但有一些国民,比其他国民更平等!”
结果,一些不是党员的信教土地孩子,变成了第2等国民;原本第2等变成第3等国民;原本第3等变成第4等国民。

就这样,动物庄园回到了原点!

*********************************************************************************
转载:土著股权分配黑箱作业, 公正党吁公布受惠名单


【梁志华撰述】人民公正党呼吁国阵政府,透明化处理土著特别股权分配机制(Special Bumiputra Share Distribution),包括公布受惠土著名单,以避免多年来高达96%土著股权“不知所踪”的情况继续重演。同时,该党也认为,应该摒弃已被滥用的30%土著股权政策,改以40%低收入家庭为扶持目标,才能真正协助贫穷的土著家庭。


人民公正党总秘书赛夫丁(Saifuddin Nasution,左图)今天发表文告,针对国际贸易与工业部长慕斯达法(Mustapa Mohamed)在上周宣布政府通过土著特别股权分配机制,成功协助土著股权提高至22%一事,批评巫统与国阵只懂得为土著股权有所提高“邀功”,却刻意掩饰土著股权持有率只达到22%水平,凸现出21年来土著扶持政策失败的事实。

他指出,真正令人担心的是,国阵政府过去多年来采用同样的土著股权分配管理方式,已导致该土著股权分配机制下,原本应该分配给土著的马币540亿元股票中,高达520亿元或96%的股票“不知所踪”。

仅仅2010年,贸工部从18项首次公开售股计划(IPO)中,把总数15亿股的股票,分配给所谓的“土著投资者”。此外,去年两宗最大的首次公开售股计划,来自国油旗下的子公司——国油化工(Petronas Chemical Group)与马来西亚海事与重工业(MMHE)。

估计上述15亿股土著特别股权,绝大部分来自这两家公司。这意味着,数以亿计的股票已经通过这个管道,分配给以“土著”为名义的投资者。

透明化处理土著股权分配

他强调,同样的土著股权分配机制,不仅已证明失败收场,同时还形成一种恩庇政治(Political Patronage)的文化,让寻租人借用30%土著股权之名,走捷径获取这些股权。这最终导致价值上亿元的股票落入马来精英手中,他们通过立即转售快速致富,牺牲了广大马来人的利益。

因此,他呼吁国阵政府必须立即纠正这个滥用30%土著股权目标,导致总值520亿元的土著股票流失的土著股权分配机制。

同时,他也呼吁贸工部长透明化处理土著特别股权分配机制,包括在土著股权分配机制下,于2010年的15亿股土著特别股权分配中受惠的土著名单。此外,他也吁请贸工部向公众透露,如何改善土著股权分配机制,并追踪这些股权的去向,以避免多年来高达520亿元土著股权“不知所踪”的情况继续重演。

最后,他透露人民公正党对土著经济扶持政策的立场是,应该摒弃已被滥用的30%土著股权政策,更专注于如何提高土著家庭的收入,因为在1100万户每月平均收入低于马币1500元的贫穷家庭中,有高达75%是土著家庭。30%土著股权并无法真正解决土著贫穷家庭的问题。

赛夫丁的文告是由该党策略局主任莫哈末拉菲兹南利(Mohd Rafizi Ramli)在今天召开的记者会上代读。

摒弃30%土著股权政策

拉菲兹(右图)在记者会上也表示,人民公正党早在2007年时已经表明立场,新经济政策已经宣告失败。以30%土著股权固打目标为基础的扶弱政策,实际上无法达到扶持土著的目标,因为最终只有那些精英份子从新经济政策中受惠。

“我们早就应该摒弃30%土著股权的政策,更专注于如何提高40%低收入家庭的收入水平。只有通过这个方式,才能真正看到低收入家庭,尤其是土著家庭的生活获得改善。国阵政府的资料也显示,40%的低收入群中,有高达75%是土著家庭。”

因此,他认为即使纳吉宣布成立土著议程推动单位(TERAJU),专门落实土著经济议程,包括继续追逐30%土著股权的政策,但是,最终结果还是一样,因为30%土著股权已经被滥用,最后得益的人都是那些巫统区部领导人,而不是广大的马来人。

他直言,尽管巫统与国阵政府一再强调如何通过土著股权分配机制,来达到提升土著股权持有率的目标,不过,这么多年来,大多数人都不知道这个土著股权分配机制是如何运作,包括谁获得股权、如何获得股权、几年后这些股权去了哪里等,只有几个“高层人士”掌控这些资讯。

他认为,只有透明化处理这个土著股权分配机制,才能确保土著股权政策不会被滥用。

国情不同,不能拿马来西亚做比较?

早前的年代,有人质疑当时的国际贸工部部长的孩子的“不劳而获”,拉菲达说:“为什么针对我,其他内阁部长的孩子都是那样,马哈迪的孩子也那样”!

前些时候,有人质疑马哈迪和他的孩子们坐拥数家国际公司和财富,砂劳越首长泰益家族的庞大财富,敦戴因,基尔,查宫等等,不能解释的财富。

土权会的Ibrahim Ali曾理直气壮的反问过:“难道执政的政治人物的家族,就一定要贫穷吗?”

鉴于你的正义感,鉴于你的同宗手足情,

你是不是该对埃及的弟兄们喊话:穆巴勒和家族,难道就该贫穷吗?
你是不是该对突尼西的弟兄们喊话:本阿里和家族,难道就该贫穷吗?
你是不是该对利比亚的弟兄们喊话:卡达非和家族,难道就该贫穷吗?

阿里啊,阿里!
你的正义感和了得的口才,津巴布韦总统穆加贝想请你去一趟对国民演说,你愿不愿意嘛?

邻桌安娣们的醋熘对话(1)

纽西兰基督城发生大地震,这次的浅层震动,伤亡惨重。
隔天,本地一份报章却刊登纽西兰升学的广告,
好处是:严谨的学术水平,一流的生活经验。。。。。。

安娣说:升学纽西兰,免费“天崩地裂, 死里逃生经历”,精彩过Universal Studio 的过山车,保证不另收费!

2011年2月11日星期五

哈啰!你是不是搞错了什么!

亚洲时报头版,大字标题,首席部长慕沙保证州政府 续援助华校庙宇却看不到其他人民代议士的半点异议。这样的定调没有问题吗?这样的说法,要燃鞭炮庆祝?该杀鸡还神吗?

作为华校庙宇和教堂的受益人,说得露骨一些,就是指非马来人对吧?
当然,在沙巴华小,土著生特多,甚至有土著学生多国华裔生的例子,没有什么好好大惊小怪的。

好了,你要是幸运或不幸,作为沙巴非马来人,
纳公司税,是人民的责任!
纳个人所得税,是每个公民的义务!
一大堆的服务税,路税!

那些,30%保留给土著的房屋单位的5%法定折扣,被分摊到那70%的购物者的变相纳税,来直接津贴土著购物者不说了!

你要是更幸运或更不幸,作为沙巴的油棕种植者,
你的多付2.5%的暴利税给沙巴州政府!
你的多付7.5%的CESS给MPOB,作为津贴全国食用油用途(COSS, cooking oil stabilising scheme)!

好了,当你尽了一切公民义务,把大部分辛苦赚来的血汗钱,变成纳税。
你的人民公仆,转身一变,变成你的爷,你的娘,告诉你,
OK,我保证会继续援助你的华校庙宇和教堂

如果你不明白,什么是援助,你不妨去查查字典!
是的,是援助你哦!没有义务的哦!你要感恩咯!你们要听话哦!
这就是援助你的意义了!

“慕沙是出席亚庇中华工商总会在1Borneo三楼宴会厅举办的辛卯年新春大团拜上致词时,如是强调。以埃动荡民生陷困为例。 他同时表示,一些国家因为内部纷争以及基于政治不稳定而促使国家无法前进,譬如最近面对局势动荡的埃及,导致该国经济和人民生活深受影响。”
你看到吗?
世界上没有什么领袖敢这样讲话的,除了马哈迪,除了巫统的政治人物,久而久之还包括,一些非马来人的国阵政治人物,会敢敢对国人这样说的!

是的,埃及就是一个活生生的例子!
但是,高高在上,最尊贵,最权势的首长啊!
你是不是没有上过学,不知道什么是因,什么是果啊?

埃及,
是因为动乱,所以民生陷困?
还是贪污腐败到极点,民不聊生忍无可忍,发动革命推翻暴政啊?

从你的语气,我真的很怀疑!
平时不做亏心事,半夜敲门也不怕!你是怕吗?
你是恐吓人民吗?

2011年2月10日星期四

谁欠了你啊?

前美国驻马来西亚大使John Malott 在华尔街日报的文章, The Price of Malaysia's Racism 见报后,一如预期的,保马党的土权阿里,靠马哈迪势力入阁当副首相的木油丁,纷纷出来声援,内容大可不必重复。中文报道

有个叫Umar Mukhtar 的毛驴,在 The Malaysian Insider 写了一篇叫 A Respond to John Malott's WSJ article。 指控一切马来西亚的种族主义源自华文源流小学和华文独中。

因为有华小和独中,就是华印裔不爱国不认同自己为马来西亚人的铁证?
因为有华小和独中,就可以合理化一切的种族偏颇主义?


"In Malaysia, a different approach towards early education was adopted. In concession to the non-Malays, especially the Chinese, vernacular education was retained as part of the national school system. The liberalism was well-intentioned and in line with the spirit of Malaysia’s constitution whereby minority communities are given the right to use and develop their own languages."
哦,今天政治人物的种族主义的源头,如果不是全部,至少大部分是因为有多元源流学校的关系?那些不知羞,甚至骄傲大声声称自己不能以马来语交谈的人,你要打赌他们来自华文或淡米尔文学校的家伙?对,幸好你还知道学习母语是国家宪法下的权力!这是你卖弄马来西亚政府开明,邀功政府使用多元教育源流的政策的地方吗?但是你可忘了,在实践上,有25%小学生的华小,却得不到1%的拨款!你的“好意”?


“The racial polarisation that we see so shamelessly capitalised on by politicians in Malaysia today is partly, if not wholly, attributable to that segregation in the school system. When you see not a few non-Malays unashamedly, even proudly, declaring that they cannot properly speak Malay, the national language, you can bet your life that these are the ones who graduated from the vernacular schools. This is fifty-three years after Malay was declared the national language.”
请问你,那一家华淡小读中是不学马来文的?
请问你,马来文的流利程度,是不是与,对马来西亚效忠和爱国,关系成正比?
请问你,有没有统计过,国民型中学或国中,辍学的华裔和印裔孩子,有多少?

对,就是怕你办的小学和中学程学术和育人的度差!怕你不认真!不合格的老师因为肤色而得到当老师的资格,误人子弟!不是吗?

你的教父,马哈迪不是也承认说,华裔印裔学生更具竞争力;当年要不是有特权,自己是没有办法进入医学系的。你看到吗?为什么华裔印裔要放弃,一个更成功,让孩子更具竞争力的教育模式,环境,方法?

“When a “Mandarin speakers only” requirement is stated in job advertisements, even for jobs which do not conceivably require much language skills, that surely is equivalent to saying “Chinese only”. But you will be hard put to find any Chinese who would admit that the practice is racially discriminatory.”
哦,如果我的客人以华裔为主,我应该规定客人必须以马来文跟公司沟通啊?
哦,如果我与中国客户有往来,我应该规定别人必须以马来文跟公司沟通啊?

这就是多掌握一种语言,就多一分竞争力咯!
你就是说,不要谈自由竞争,不要说绩效;要把你当皇帝,有优先咯!
此地无银三百两!
自暴其短!
呜呼哀哉!

*****************************************************************************
FEB 10 — John Malott has waded into the debate on Malaysian race relations with half an analysis when obviously a fuller one would have been of greater service to the discourse. Granted, his piece was intended more than anything else to be a critique of Prime Minister Najib Razak’s handling of the current situation in the country.
However, in doing so, he has highlighted only the non-Malay responses to what is described as Malay racism. This is very misleading and the reason for my saying that he had written only half an analysis of the situation.

A more robust and honest assessment of race relations in Malaysia would take into account the fact that what appears to be Malay racism is in itself a response to non-Malay racism against Malays. Yes, two wrongs do not make a right. But as the Malay saying goes, “It takes both hands to clap”. That is to say, Malott’s article runs the risk of completely absolving non-Malays from any responsibility in the racial predicament that the country is in.

That is nothing less than avoiding reality and counter-productive to any effort to improve race relations in Malaysia. Malays have their grievances, too, against the Chinese. The fact that they seldom get aired does not make those grievances any less legitimate or valid.

Education for the very young is one obvious area where racist attitudes can be nipped in the bud. The importance for racial integration to begin at a young age is recognised, so much so that in the 1960s and 1970s, the US supreme court sanctioned the forced bussing of students in order to break down the racial segregation between white and African-American schools. That was in America.

In Malaysia, a different approach towards early education was adopted. In concession to the non-Malays, especially the Chinese, vernacular education was retained as part of the national school system. The liberalism was well-intentioned and in line with the spirit of Malaysia’s constitution whereby minority communities are given the right to use and develop their own languages.

In practice, and perhaps this was unforeseen by Malaysia’s founding fathers, the national-vernacular dichotomy in the school system has resulted in precisely the kind of early-age racial segregation that the bussing laws, upheld by the US supreme court justices, sought to eradicate in America. While desegregation of schools may or may not result in greater racial integration, segregation virtually guarantees that there will be no racial integration.

The racial polarisation that we see so shamelessly capitalised on by politicians in Malaysia today is partly, if not wholly, attributable to that segregation in the school system. When you see not a few non-Malays unashamedly, even proudly, declaring that they cannot properly speak Malay, the national language, you can bet your life that these are the ones who graduated from the vernacular schools. This is fifty-three years after Malay was declared the national language.

The Chinese community jealously guard the existence of the vernacular schools, implicitly reinforcing the message of their racial and cultural separateness and exclusivity but yet insist that they should not be looked at as the “other” by Malays. For many Malays, including this writer, that smacks of having your cake and eating it, too.

Often the excuse given by the Chinese for insisting that their children go to vernacular schools and for more such schools to be built is the poor quality of national schools. Surely the solution is not to build more racially-segregated schools but to join hands with Malays and Indians in insisting and ensuring that the quality of national schools be improved for the benefit of children of all ethnicities. Perhaps that is considered such an outlandishly “out-of-the-racial box” thinking that I have never heard any Chinese make that call.

Any sincere and honest effort to improve race relations has to take cognizance of the fact that racism exists in and racial discrimination is practised, to one extend or another, by all the races in Malaysia.

However, my own honest observation is that the Chinese never want to admit or acknowledge their own racism against Malays or other races.

Official and overt discriminatory policies can easily be criticised as institutionalised racism but covert racial discriminations by their very nature are harder to pinpoint. That does not mean they don’t exist or any less invidious than the former.

When a “Mandarin speakers only” requirement is stated in job advertisements, even for jobs which do not conceivably require much language skills, that surely is equivalent to saying “Chinese only”. But you will be hard put to find any Chinese who would admit that the practice is racially discriminatory.

When Malaysia’s most famous blogger, Raja Petra Kamarudin, related some years ago in his blog how Chinese businesses ganged up to ensure the failure of his motorcycle dealership, none of his Chinese readers cared to acknowledge that he was the victim of racism. His was probably just the tip of the iceberg of similar cases.

And it’s always with a mixture of amusement and sadness when I read the many comments in the internet from non-Malays complaining about the racial policies of the Malaysian government which scarcely conceal their own racism towards Malays in general. If Malott doubts the truth of what I am saying, he should read the comments that followed the publication of his recent article in Malaysian news portals.

To many Malays, given the refusal of non-Malays to even acknowledge their own racism, the prospect of a rollback of whatever few affirmative action policies left on the plate appears to be concessions which are unlikely to be matched in a similar spirit by the Chinese in the spheres that they predominate, namely the commercial and economic.

If Najib can be accused of pandering to militant Malay groups, Chinese political leaders in the government and opposition too can be accused of pandering to their racial constituency.

In my lifetime, I have yet to hear of any Chinese leader asking that the Chinese to join in and contribute towards the betterment of national schools. I have yet to hear of one calling for Chinese businesses to assist or at least not to gang up against their fellow non-Chinese businesses or to not practise discrimination in their employment policies.

Malott failed to take into account one side of the equation in his brief exposition of the race relations situation in Malaysia. Hopefully, I have managed to redress that and allow a better understanding of why things are the way they are in Malaysia.

It would have been more gracious of Malott if he had used his relationship with Malaysians during his tenure as a diplomat to impart his country’s experience and firm action with regard to vigilance against the emergence of the evil that is racism, than to make things worse by dogmatically adopting the attitude that sympathising with the minority makes one righteous.

2011年2月1日星期二

新年

过去一年,有值得回忆的。

马来西亚的国事政事马戏团,一如往常,有跟多的不堪回首;累了,不想多说。

无论如何,在这个新春佳节里,愿大家新年蒙恩,平安喜乐。